I was upset because the assumption is held by many that "seminary professors are ecumenists who are thinking with their rational minds and not experiencing God the correct way by spiritual growth, etc."

I want to defend seminary professors without snubbing the laity, because sometimes you meet academics who think they know everything.

Both are extremes. We agree, Hypo, that both groups are equally important and that neither is infallible.

I'm just trying to debunk the idea that seminary professors are somehow removed from "real Orthodoxy" and that when they come up with reflections that are different than what some think is the "Only Orthodox way" they are "obviously wrong, ignoring the Fathers, and ecumenists."

As far as "disregarding the teachings of the saints." First of all, my whole argument is that Orthodoxy is organic and passed down in an ecclesial community (ie The Church). Those who pray, fast, and witness Christianity are the ones who best understand the truths of Orthodoxy, not those who read about it and theorize about it. Since I know for a fact that the professors at St. Vladimir's are dedicated Orthodox Christians who worship regularly, pray, and fast, and are humble in their approach to dogmatic questions, I trust their understanding of the Fathers *taken as a whole*. Now when you say it's wrong to disregard the teachings of the saints, I would agree, but let's not turn this into "Saint quotation infallibility." Saints can be wrong on individual matters, or they can be speaking from a particular historical experience thus speaking an opinion, not handing down the tradition of the Church. On some occasions, the saints didn't even understand what the Latins taught in the first place, but spoke from second-hand information.

I did not intend to prooftext quotations from Saints to make my point (I agree with you that is wrong). My GOA priest and spiritual father lives Orthodoxy as do the other people in my parish that I know; they all feel that the Latins are in heresy over their novel doctrines. The people who live Orthodoxy more than anybody else that I have ever seen is the monks of Saint Anthony's (Yes, the Elder Ephraim monastery in AZ), and they believe the Latins to be heretical. As for the witness of the saints, I think it is of some importance that are are numerous saints who have fought the Latin heresy (even some martyrs). It is ironic one of the greatest condemnations of the modern Papacy was written by Pope Saint Gregory the Great. I also think the witness of the Holy Mountain is important to consider on this matter. There are also many documents signed by a long list of bishops and patriarchs (who I assume lived Orthodoxy) to consider. So please consider the above people before you pass judgement on all who think the Latins are heretical as not living an Orthodox life. I do not live an Orthodox life; I am the 'angry convert' (or whatever the going term is for us)...but the people I listed abover are not and are truly Orthodox.

But is a person a heretic if they do not know that what they believe and hold to be true is a heresy?

That is the question. And, in my humble opinion, while one can hold that a particular position is heretical, and those who formally accept that position while knowing the orthodox position and rejecting it are heretics, I don't think one can carry this to the next level and say that Latins are heretics and that's that. For most Latins today believe that what they believe is the truth, and is no heresy, but orthodox faith. Hence, in one sense we could say they believe heretical doctrines, but I don't think we could say Sister Mary Ignatius, Mons. Ted Graham, or any other Catholic was a heretic, because in most cases they have been raised to believe that their position is the truth, and, if I'm not mistaken, in order to be a heretic, you have to choose to reject the true faith. If you think that what you've been raised with is the true faith, then what? Such a person is not guilty of heresy, and so is not a heretic, even though they may believe a heretical teaching.

Hypo-Ortho

I think it's just so much easier, Mor, for us Orthodox to be AGAINST something, e.g., heresy (and we "should" be against heresy, btw, as Scripture teaches) than actively and forcefully to be FOR something, e.g., Pro-Life, chastity, fasting, prayer, almsgiving, Truth. And while we should not label the average RC as a heretic and blast him/her as such (it's just not PC and ecumenist to do that!), the same cannot be said of the Pope and his minions, who should know better and yet continue to perpetuate heretical beliefs among their adherents.

But is a person a heretic if they do not know that what they believe and hold to be true is a heresy?

Then there are very few if ANY heretics. All the great herisarchs probably thought what they taught was true (giving them the benifit of the doutb), ergo they weren't heretics (which would be ridiculous to say!). It is not our bussiness to judge anybody on the grassroots level, but it is very important to pass judgement on the system as heretical. Yes there are many well-intentioned Latins, but does that make the filioque, Vatican I etc. any less heretical? Should we not speak the truth about Islam simply because there are millions who have no choice but Islam or execution in thier countries?

Then there are very few if ANY heretics. All the great herisarchs probably thought what they taught was true (giving them the benifit of the doutb), ergo they weren't heretics (which would be ridiculous to say!).

Yes, but what I mean to say is that there is a difference between a Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Joe Aloysius Schmoe. It is sorta like Hypo's point:

And while we should not label the average RC as a heretic and blast him/her as such (it's just not PC and ecumenist to do that!), the same cannot be said of the Pope and his minions, who should know better and yet continue to perpetuate heretical beliefs among their adherents.

It is not our bussiness to judge anybody on the grassroots level, but it is very important to pass judgement on the system as heretical. Yes there are many well-intentioned Latins, but does that make the filioque, Vatican I etc. any less heretical? Should we not speak the truth about Islam simply because there are millions who have no choice but Islam or execution in thier countries?

I am in agreement with this. I'm sorry if my post gave a contrary impression. Judge the system, but not the people.

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling. What's your basis for facts? The internet? Works of Frank Shaeffer, Clark Carlton, and Michael Whelton?

While arguments from authority are the weakest of arguments (in this case, you see St.Vlad's as an "authority"), at least they are still arguments. Ad hominem "arguments" however, are only such in name.

Quote

Certainly the Orthodox would hold that the Vatican I doctrines are errors or even heresy but would not then conclude that individual Roman Catholics are heretics.

So the unfortunates who were born and raised into Arian clans in ancient Germania (due to the missionary activities of the Arians who fled from east to west), were not "heretics"? Granted, I'm willing to conceed the difference between a "heretic" and a "heresiarch" (which seems to be confused in this conversation; the latter term is all but ignored, the former made to take it's place, with a vacuum left behind for those who materially hold to the errors or their seperated communion.) Even between formal adherance to an error (with varying levels of culpability), or material heresy.

But the fact remains, if one adheres to a heresy, they are a heretic (even if one wishes to say this is only materially so, and speculate that this is an error made out of good faith.) There is nothing passionate or upset about this appraisal; the very word "heretic" refers to one holding a different opinion - in this case, a different belief than that taught and preserved in the Orthodox Church.

"errors or even heresy"... so you're not sure whether the Pope as having immediate and universal authority over each Christian on the face of the planet, and in fact being personally infallible (despite attempts to water this down since Vatican II with talk of collegiality) in certain circumstances, are not in fact "heresies"? If these do not qualify as ecclessiological heresies, one has to wonder what would?

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling. What's your basis for facts? The internet? Works of Frank Shaeffer, Clark Carlton, and Michael Whelton?

While arguments from authority are the weakest of arguments (in this case, you see St.Vlad's as an "authority"), at least they are still arguments. Ad hominem "arguments" however, are only such in name.

Dear Seraphim,

I appreciate your attempt to be conciliatory but will argue that I was not arguing ad hominem. I belive that one's personal experiences heavily impact their religious views. When we talk about Orthodoxy, we talk about experience as well; that was the whole point of my critique of you; the people at St. Vladimir's live Orthodoxy daily and have done so since its foundation in 1938; this is a living Orthodox community. You (and me both) are recent on the scene.

As far as an argument from authority, I wonder whence you dervive the statement "arguments from authority are weak." Perhaps in a political context, but in the Church we believe in the authority of the bishops. Of course we also believe in the laos (people of God) but many of the educated people of God fully support St. Vladimir's and its presentation of the Orthodox faith.

If an Arian in Germany didn't know that Arianism isn't wrong, and he was a born member of that Church, he is not a heretic. He is simply in error. Latins distinguish between material and formal heretics, the former being someone who believes the wrong thing and the later being someone who professes it. I believe the distinction is valid despite its source.

When we talk about Orthodoxy, we talk about experience as well; that was the whole point of my critique of you; the people at St. Vladimir's live Orthodoxy daily and have done so since its foundation in 1938; this is a living Orthodox community

The ad hominem is the implication that whoever disaggrees with the Seminary is wrong and not living an Orthodox life. My point when I posted on the matter a few days ago is the people that I [personally] have seen that live the most Orthodox lives are all against Orthodox and Catholic ecumenism. You no right whatsoever to even imply that the vast number of Orthodox who reject ecumenism are not "living an Orthodox life." If you want a well established Orthodox Community, look towards the Holy Mountain and their viewpoints on Latins being heretics. If the Latins are not heretics then the Orthodox were wrong are both Lyons and Florence (and for that matter wrong to this day). One can't have it both ways.

When we talk about Orthodoxy, we talk about experience as well; that was the whole point of my critique of you; the people at St. Vladimir's live Orthodoxy daily and have done so since its foundation in 1938; this is a living Orthodox community

The ad hominem is the implication that whoever disaggrees with the Seminary is wrong and not living an Orthodox life. My point when I posted on the matter a few days ago is the people that I [personally] have seen that live the most Orthodox lives are all against Orthodox and Catholic ecumenism. You no right whatsoever to even imply that the vast number of Orthodox who reject ecumenism are not "living an Orthodox life." If you want a well established Orthodox Community, look towards the Holy Mountain and their viewpoints on Latins being heretics. If the Latins are not heretics then the Orthodox were wrong are both Lyons and Florence (and for that matter wrong to this day). One can't have it both ways.

Whatever man. I am on the defensive not the offensive. The implication was NOT that to disagree with St. Vladimir's means you're wrong, it was that St. Valdimir's is a fully Orthodox place--I was defending that! If people disagree with St. Vladimir's then fine, that's okay (and it should be noted that at St. Vladimir's this stuff is debated even among the faculty). I can live with that; what I can't live with is ignorant people claiming that St. Vladimir's isn't Orthodox. THAT was my whole point. You and Seraphim are trying to turn this into me saying that those who disagree with St. Vladimir's are not Orthodox--but I never said that and I don't believe it.

As far as your claim that I implied that those who are against ecumenism are not living an Orthodox life--that is just plain stupid because I didn't say that either. The only implication that I made was again a DEFENSE of St. Vladimir's faculty as highly Orthodox. Do I think Mt. Athos people are not holy? No. Do I think that ecumenism-rejectors are not holy? No. Didn't say that, didn't imply that.

Stop reading between the lines. All I did was defend St. Vlad's against attack. You are trying to turn this into a statement by me that to not be an ecumenist does not make one holy. For the record I don't believe that. I don't think ecumenism has anything to do with the degree that someone is living an Orthodox life; I think it is an issue which has not been dogmatically defined and which good people can disagree about.

As far as an argument from authority, I wonder whence you dervive the statement "arguments from authority are weak." Perhaps in a political context, but in the Church we believe in the authority of the bishops. Of course we also believe in the laos (people of God) but many of the educated people of God fully support St. Vladimir's and its presentation of the Orthodox faith.

Arguments from authority are not necessarily "weak", simply "the weakest." Paradoxically, however, if the "authority" involved is sufficient, they can be anything but "weak" arguments. For example, if the authority is God, then it is a very strong argument (even if the logic involved is not apparent.)

However, it is not clear here that the proffessors of St.Vladimir are speaking with an authority greater than themselves. It's certainly not been established that the views that you asbcribe to them, are rooted in the tradition of the Church (whether it be the services, Fathers, or the Holy Scriptures.) Thus, in a case like this, simply citing "their" authority is a wasted excercise (and thus why in logic, arguments from authority are generally the "weakest" arguments.)

Quote

If an Arian in Germany didn't know that Arianism isn't wrong, and he was a born member of that Church, he is not a heretic. He is simply in error. Latins distinguish between material and formal heretics, the former being someone who believes the wrong thing and the later being someone who professes it. I believe the distinction is valid despite its source.

In that case, there are practically no heretics to speak of (and never have been) since even heresairchs (instigators of heresy) are usually quite convinced that they are correct.

If you had read my earlier response carefully, you would have noted that it was I who made the very distinction you bring up (entertaining the notion of there being a difference between "formal" and "material" heresy), as well as mentioning possible culpability. However, that still leaves the party involved a "heretic". It seems to me that the real problem is that the term "heretic" is perceived as being uncouth, so the ecumenically inclined don't want to use it (even if it fits the bill.)

If you want to cite the Latin distinction between "formal" and "material" heretic, you have a problem; since a "material heretic" is still a heretic in old school Latin thought (thus why, before the Vatican started subscribing to ecumenism, RC moralists and theologians definatly considered Lutherans, Presbysterians, etc., to be heretics.)